Of course I am acknowledging the universe in a big way here, “that by measure,” we can arrive at “some ideas” about the nature of this universe. Fundamental constants acknowledged.
This post was to raise awareness of the “idea about noise that can be created by people,” layman like myself, as to questions we can have about the universe’s birth. How can I be more specific? While these questions are not specific to an analysis of the way and approaches in experiment at the forefront, or theoretics, I can wonder and do voice from “information specific as lead by science” that the “science trades embedded” are in the analysis, and am working toward this resolution of a “factual and actual representation.”
There is an assumption on my part that gravity existed “before this universe” and “came into expression” as this universe. How does one qualify this statement? I do not discount that I was lead here by Veneziano. I do not discount and acknowledge an astronomer would be happy with just accepting the universe as the way it is, in a nice box. But yes, I too think outside the box in more ways then one.:) Shall I not acknowledge, such heat generated in my thinking mind may propel new universes in idea expression?
These are just two of the measures below that have, and will, allow us to interpret the very outlay and expression motivated, as it is.
Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Data Processing, Sky Maps, and Basic Results. Credit Source: WMAP Science Team
The temperature (TT) and temperature-polarization correlation (TE) power spectra based on the 5 year WMAP data. Additional data provide more sensitive measurements of the third peak in TT and the high-l TE spectrum, especially the second trough.
See: Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
Now, I develop this post knowing that Clifford and Robert and Sean, look to discuss respectively and abstractly Boltzmann Brains, gravity inherent, a description of the universe at large. That some work from “purely abstract levels in mathematics.” It is not always certain and clear for me how this math is deduced, but from holding “bench marks of the constants” as an progression to further questions. Future theoretics.
It is planned to launch Planck in early April of 2009 together with the Herschel satellite. After launch, Planck and Herschel will separate and will be placed in different orbits around the second Lagrangian point of the Earth-Sun System.Credit Source: Planck Science Team Home
Planck will help provide answers to one of the most important sets of questions asked in modern science – how did the Universe begin, how did it evolve to the state we observe today, and how will it continue to evolve in the future? Planck’s objective is to analyse, with the highest accuracy ever achieved, the remnants of the radiation that filled the Universe immediately after the Big Bang, which we observe today as the Cosmic Microwave Background.
While they all do say that they do not have the full knowledge, would it be safe to say, that they all are arriving at their conclusions by approximations as well? That these approximations in context of the real thing, real knowledge, is far from an adequate description of the birth of this universe and would still be considered as noise?:)